After the Soviet collapse- A globe redrawn

[Darth Wong]

The big problem with communism's "churning out stuff no one wanted" was that it was very inflexible; laid out in multi-year plans that had to be adhered to -- it was a great system for producing large masses of concrete and steel; but concrete and steel are stockpileable commodities; you can use them three, four years later without any concern; but this didn't work very well with consumer goods -- which even in the 1960s and 1970s were starting to accelerate at ever increasing rates of development -- witness the transistor revolution allowing semi-pocket radios in the sixties, and then desktop calculators which steadily shrunk in size throughout the 1970s.

The consumer-gadget economy is not the paragon of virtue that you're making it out to be. It literally generates new demand (this is considered a praiseworthy trait in the US) for products that no one thought they needed before. As for heavy industry, that requires serious planning and long-term investment regardless of whether you are a capitalist or communist. Do you seriously think huge heavy-metal operations like steel mills and auto manufacturing plants are "flexible" in the sense that they can be quickly expanded or contracted at will?

It is difficult to transform an entire economy; the so-called "rust belt" portions of the United States are testament to this fact. Entire regional economies in the "rust belt" struggled to adapt to higher-tech information age manufacturing, and many show no signs that they will ever recover.

It's also important to note that much of the "Rust belt" areas of the US are pro-union strongholds; while the areas with the strongest industrial growth in the last 20~ years in the US have been in the southern states, which are anti-union; what with foreign car manufacturers, etc setting up shop in the South; and with the recent decision by Boeing to build their second 787 line in South Carolina after the local Everett, WA union were a total bunch of tools.

It's true that unions are part of the problem. But there are a lot of intrinsic reasons why it's very difficult to make that transition, and why it's often easier to move than to upgrade. Rearranging an entire factory is a difficult task to say the least, especially if you actually need its output the whole time. It's actually easier in many ways to set up a new factory, get it running, and then shut down the old one. That way, your production never actually stops; it runs at the old factory until the moment of shutdown and the new factory can seamlessly take over. You also get to ditch the old workers, which will probably help your bottom line regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable they were being.

It's kind of hard to adopt hi-tech industrial methods which can produce the same amount of widgets with just half of the workers; if the workers are respresented by a union which demands that 85% of the workers remain on the job, even with technology advancements.

Even without such a union, shifts in demand can devastate industries. The increasingly rapid, volatile shifts in demand which are associated with increasing globalization are intrinsically hostile to the type of heavy industry where planning must be done years ahead. This is a natural mismatch which the economists seem remarkably silent on, except to shrug and say "Oh well, ho hum, not my problem because my job is to write articles for a magazine".

This sort of ties into something my late friend used to say -- the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in Russian heavy industry being tossed from it's 1950s/1960s existence into the 1990s quite suddenly; and where it's traditional advantages -- being able to produce massive quantities of mid-grade steel yearly were negated by the fact that you could now buy steel that was of better quality for cheaper from overseas steelmakers.

There must be an awful lot of detail getting lost in this incredibly simplistic analysis. If they were making mid-grade steel before, then it must have been intended for applications where mid-grade steel was appropriate. Nobody buys "better" steel than they need for an application, especially when better steel is not necessarily better in every way. For example, most "better steels" are much more difficult to machine and process, thus actually making them inferior steels in many applications.

Yet if Africa had had too much big-power attention for its own good in the 1980s, after the Soviet collapse, arguably, it had too little.

In the bad old days; you could get guns and shit by simply proclaiming your undying fealty to the world marxist revolution or to capitalism and the free market. Now, you have to pay for it. Hence the term "blood diamond". The big problem is that there was so much shit stockpiled during the Cold War, that munitions can be got for cheap. This is a part of the world where using anti-tank mines against cattle to starve out an enemy tribe by blowing up their cows is an accepted part of warfare. (this is because a large part of a tribe's wealth is in it's livestock).

Wait, didn't the collapse of the USSR make Soviet-built arms much easier to acquire around the world, because there was suddenly a vast surplus of them and no shortage of unscrupulous arms dealers and smugglers willing to ship them around? I thought Africa became a dumping ground for Soviet weapons in the 1990s.

Wait a minute: he feels that the collapse of the Soviet Union made the Middle East more amenable to peace, even though hostilities between America and the Middle East have been steadily rising since that moment?

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arab regimes lost their biggest supplier of cheap munitions -- though, by that point, the Soviets had already turned off the "free tanks and aircraft for nothing" spigot; which is one reason why there hasn't been a middle east war since 1973 -- because now the regimes in power know that they can't get their tanks and aircraft replaced for cheap -- so they have to preserve their militaries for internal security.

So why doesn't it seem peaceful over there?

It seems like this guy is inadvertently agreeing that the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union was actually a bad thing

Of course it was; I want my 768 ATFs and 132 ATBs.

Of course

[KrauserKrauser]

Stas, doesn't it follow that if the USSR economy, which is going to be decades to years behind technologically, would have a harder time selling it's value added products as their manufactured goods will be receiving less of a benefit from each level of manufacturing?

If the most money is made on manufactured goods and nominally the higher the tech base, the more value added to the manufacturing of raw materials, it makes sense that the higher order the good, ie the more manufacturing steps it has to go through, the more opportunity for that technology gap to show up in costs, quality and productivity. Competing from a lower tech base would cause large problems for the now world market competing USSR and I would definitely understand that their high level manufactured goods would die out before their raw materials and very low level goods.

This could have been alleviated by government support or protection of the high order manufacturing until adjustments could be made, it's easier to catch up than invent from scratch, but that was not the road taken.

Basically you would be using the same raw materials and the demand is still there but there is not much demand for your 8 track player when I am churning out iPods.

[K. A. Pital]

This could have been alleviated by government support or protection of the high order manufacturing until adjustments could be made, it's easier to catch up than invent from scratch, but that was not the road taken.

Exactly, and that is my opinion as well. To add here, I'll remind that Belarus took that approach (albeit on a localized scale) and conserved the higher industries until better times. Eventually, it was the first post-Soviet Republic to break 1990 levels of economic activity, completing the restoration in a faster, and more equal (GINI and social support network-wise) fashion.

Competing from a lower tech base would cause large problems for the now world market competing USSR

It would also cause many problems if the internal market was just opened no holds barred to influx of cheap foreign goods (re: Chinese, et cetera) whilst at the same time no barriers to capital flight were erected. That double-whammy is deadly for any industry, and the USSR's no lone example here.

The USSR actually wasn't too keen on exporting it's ordinary goods to the world and that barely changed with the collapse (Russia is now even worse, exporting only the very raw material products), but it was the ravage of the internal Soviet market by foreign corporations, which made the collapse so brutal.

But the fact remains that currently Russia's production and economy are much more primitive (and so are the economies of other states), tech-wise. Russia has no high-tech production, and the high-tech industries it used to have under the USSR (defence, aerospace, shipbuilding, railway) are in a state of malaisу if not destroyed. Russia is more tech backwards, by share of raw resource sectors vis advanced manufacturing sectors in economy, but yet Russia is not collapsing.

Hence me ridiculing the "no microchips!" cries. Russia today is even worse at advanced manufacturing and oil and gas become the lion's share of economy, but it still lingers on. A USSR would be much more diversified and stable, had it's manufacturing sector perservered along with the raw resource and primitive reprocessing sectors.

[Kane Starkiller]

The problem here is the chicken and the egg. When we look at industrial production charts carefully we see that production of rail carts, for example, peaked around 1977 and dropped to 71% of the initial value by 1990. Similarly steel cutting plant, truck and trolleybus production all peaked at around 1985 and steel production at 1988 (additionally trolleybus production already started oscillating drastically in the 1970).
The really steep drop starts at 1990 for all the listed industries and the actual dissolution of USSR was in late december of 1991.

Thus the economic decline starts roughly 10-20 years and the crash 1 year before the political dissolution. The economic crash is the cause not the consequence of the political collapse.
Economic collapse induced political collapse which in turn enabled the theft (by those in power like KGB) of already collapsing industries. This had nothing to do with "bad advice" from the West or liberalization.

The problem of USSR was similar to the one in Yugoslavia: a country with a large nation as the core (Serbia in Yugoslavia, Russia in USSR) surrounded by a group of smaller nations that were never overly enthusiastic about the country they were in but as long as it more or less functioned economically and with the combination of centrally controlled security apparatus the country was kept intact.
When economic dysfunction became too great that incentive for remaining a part of a larger political entity was lost and various nations which still preserved their identities, cultures and languages began pushing for independence. Hence multiethnic countries like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and USSR collapsed (some more peacefully than others) while homogenous countries like Poland or Romania didn't.

[K. A. Pital]

The really steep drop starts at 1990 for all the listed industries and the actual dissolution of USSR was in late december of 1991.

You don't think the breakdown of a unified nation-state had exacerbated the fall and made something that could've been a mild recession into a rather horrific depression?

The economic crash is the cause not the consequence of the political collapse

Many industries still continued growing until late 1991, when it became clear no alleviation will follow and the collapse is complete. And for example, after 1993, many downward processes intensified. This brings us to my thesis above - the scale of economic disaster can vary. The collapse made it really wide and heavy, but without it, things might - and quite possibly would - have been different.

[Sidewinder]

Of course, I don't really agree that the PRL was viable in the long term.

I don't think Soviet-backed East European states were viable either. Forcing a huge political hammer on Eastern Europe that demanded of these nations to follow every Soviet advice was the largest blunder of Soviet foreign policy and perhaps the worst of them. It made the US pressure on the USSR relentless, while other nations could've rested in their backyards, and the situation inside the Soviet bloc unstable. The USSR would've been better off letting those nations go and follow their own way. Milder foreign political pressure a-la USSR-Finland or USSR-Yugoslavia was a better model and required far less effort on behalf of the superpower itself, including financial effort as well.

I mean, even without Soviet pressure in the wake of WWII, many of those nations would most likely fall under Soviet influence.

I really have to ask: If you said as such during the time between Stalin's death and Gorbachev's rise, how would your peers respond? Say, "Yeah, good idea," and forget it by dinner time? Say, "Yeah, that's an excellent idea!" and encourage you to write a letter to a newspaper editor? Say, "I don't think so," and forget it? Say, "You Fascist revisionist! How dare you propagate such treasonous thought!" and call the police?

How would the authorities respond? Ignore you? Question and then release you? Imprison you?

How did Soviet-era officials feel about their obligations towards other Communist nations, e.g., the massive amounts of aid their allies needed? Did they think it's wasted- worse, weakening the USSR, as some Americans have commented regarding their nation's obligations to NATO and the UN?

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, you could hear the COMECON nations referred to as "leechers" or "luggage" by your ordinary Soviet citizen in a table talk. Hence the apathetic reaction to the COMECON dismantling. And it probably somewhat explains the same apathy when it came to dismantling the USSR itself - not a few Russians referred to and thought of other Republics as "leechers" and "free-riders".

As for the authorities, I don't really know. For the inner USSR, the thought that all these nations are being socialist and brotherly and all that was propagated, that those nations have their own communists and act independently, et cetera. Yeah, you'd probably have a round of questions from your party boss, if you had any, or some questions at a komsomol meeting, if you attended any. Doubt there'd be more consequences, in the post-Stalin era.

[Kane Starkiller]

You don't think the breakdown of a unified nation-state had exacerbated the fall and made something that could've been a mild recession into a rather horrific depression?

The collapse certainly didn't help. However seeing that even Russia, which contained 50% of USSR population and most of natural resources and industry, collapsed heavily and fared not much better than Ukraine for example I don't see why USSR would be able to avoid a drastic economic collapse even if it remained intact.

While there can be no doubt that the process of political collapse itself was damaging that is a different issue than the question of whether USSR republics would be better off today had the USSR survived.
On one hand Tajikistan would likely fare better in a unified USSR on the other hand it is difficult to imagine baltic republics being more successful than they were as independent nations.

COMECON was definitely a economic net loss. It was never really a true economic alliance. There was Eastern Europe which was basically conquered by Red Army and did what it was told. It's value to USSR was geopolitical as a buffer zone between the Western Europe. The other part were various underdeveloped countries like Vietnam or Cuba that were merely pawns in the struggle with USA. They received economic and military aid in return for USSR influence.
When the economic crisis hit USSR decided to trade geopolitical gains for economic contact and investment from the West. They decided to let Eastern Germany go without a fight which lead to rapid unveiling of their control all the way to baltic republics.

[K. A. Pital]

However seeing that even Russia, which contained 50% of USSR population and most of natural resources and industry, collapsed heavily and fared not much better than Ukraine for example I don't see why USSR would be able to avoid a drastic economic collapse even if it remained intact.

Russia did fare better than Ukraine. The industrial collapse of Ukraine is perhaps the most drastic I've ever seen. This is corroborated even by satellite oversight. The guy is referring to my own blog post on the matter, I just didn't translate it so this is about the best translation there is. See picture. The legend can be found on NGDC website. HDI and GDP statistics corroborate that Ukraine's decline was worse than Russia's.

On one hand Tajikistan would likely fare better in a unified USSR on the other hand it is difficult to imagine baltic republics being more successful than they were as independent nations.

Yeah, except Tajikistan suffered a brutal civil war whereas the Baltics just had a better time than others in post-crisis life level. Those aren't even anywhere equivalent, massive suffering and a mild life level increase. Or are they? We had a discussion with, I think, Darth Hoth on that matter in history.

[Elfdart]

Angolan regime? How can they call the faction backed up by USSR and Cuba a regime when the opposition factions like UNITA was backed up by fucking Apartheid South Africa?

You know, not to derail this thread; but if we go by the metrics that Comrade Stas is using; shouldn't we be rooting for Apartheid South Africa to survive? They were brutal S.O.B.s, but if you look at what South Africa became after Apartheid, with criminals and rapists literally running the new government; and crime spiralling out of control (can we say flamethrowers mounted in cars to defeat criminals like some sort of neo-dystopian NEW DETROIT from ROBOSHROOM?); they were clearly better than the alternative.

What horseshit. Apartheid-era South Africa pulled a sleight-of-hand game with their economy by not counting living conditions on the various Bantustans they set up. It would be like the US only counting New England and the Pacific Northwest and pretending Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi don't exist -even though they are part of the same country.

BTW; I wouldn't be so quick to lionize Nelson Mandela. In 1985; the government offered to pardon Mandela if he would renounce armed struggle against the state -- aka brutal marxist guerilla war -- and of course, Mandela turned it down.

He said he'd renounce armed struggle when Botha did. The bastard!

He also had a class AAA wife; who supported the practice of necktieing as a method to fight against the evil apartheid reigme.

Had, as in past tense. He got rid of her when he got out of jail.

For those of you who don't know what necktying is; it's placing a used tire over someone's head; filling it with gasoline, and then lighting a match.

Actually, it's necklacing -and it was done to suspected informants for the South African government which at the time was torturing and "disappearing" thousands of people. Funny how summary murder is worthy of a from you, but only when the dark-skinned folk do it.

[TC Pilot]

The collapse certainly didn't help. However seeing that even Russia, which contained 50% of USSR population and most of natural resources and industry, collapsed heavily and fared not much better than Ukraine for example I don't see why USSR would be able to avoid a drastic economic collapse even if it remained intact.

Well, for starters, you wouldn't have the disruption of the economy inherent in the USSR's collapse. Second, you don't seriously think Gorbachev's Soviet Union would have pursued the same disasterous policies as Yeltsin's Russia, do you?

When the economic crisis hit USSR decided to trade geopolitical gains for economic contact and investment from the West. They decided to let Eastern Germany go without a fight which lead to rapid unveiling of their control all the way to baltic republics.

Eh? The unravelling of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe didn't begin with East Germany. Czechoslovakia had already opened its borders to the West (through which quite a few East Germans emmigrated, and in many respects percipitated the crisis in E. Germany), and of course there was Solidarity in Poland.

[Kane Starkiller]

Russia did fare better than Ukraine. The industrial collapse of Ukraine is perhaps the most drastic I've ever seen. This is corroborated even by satellite oversight. The guy is referring to my own blog post on the matter, I just didn't translate it so this is about the best translation there is. See picture. The legend can be found on NGDC website. HDI and GDP statistics corroborate that Ukraine's decline was worse than Russia's.

I don't see how that picture proves anything, obviously Moscow region which contains something like 33% of total Ukrainian population will shine far more brightly than anything in Ukraine.
However I already acknowledged Russia fared better (although worse than Baltic republics) but it also suffered a steep drop. Would Soviet Union managed to lessen the drop? Or to begin growth before 1995 as the FSU did? Or manage the impact of the East Asian financial crisis of the 1998 better? Ultimately would it truly reform or continued limping until an even greater crisis somewhere in the future?

Yeah, except Tajikistan suffered a brutal civil war whereas the Baltics just had a better time than others in post-crisis life level. Those aren't even anywhere equivalent, massive suffering and a mild life level increase. Or are they? We had a discussion with, I think, Darth Hoth on that matter in history.

Yes that is the reason I mentioned Tajikistan as one of the republics that would likely be better off although seeing the trouble in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan I wonder whether even unified the ethnic conflict could've been avoided.

Well, for starters, you wouldn't have the disruption of the economy inherent in the USSR's collapse. Second, you don't seriously think Gorbachev's Soviet Union would have pursued the same disasterous policies as Yeltsin's Russia, do you?

But there is no evidence that the collapse itself would be lesser and the bigger question is whether USSR would truly reform or continue as before. Furthermore I think the Yeltsin's impact on Russia is greatly exaggerated. He certainly was a thief however ultimately leaders have to play with cards they are given. Gorbachev inherited a declining USSR economy which he tried to turn around, Yeltsin inherited the USSR that was already undergoing economic collapse. By the time he became the president of Russia in July 1991, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania already declared sovereignty and Ukraine declared sovereignty just 6 days after he became president. With a country undergoing economic and political collapse and a coup attempt just month after he came to office what could he do?
The fact that he cleverly used the events around him to propel himself to power and steal doesn't mean that he ever had the chance to change the direction of the events that led to the political and economic collapse of the USSR as whole.
Yeltsin's own hand picked successor Putin inherited a country that was on the rebound after the low of East Asian financial crisis and was buoyed by rising natural resource prices. He used that fortunate turn of events to establish himself as a savior and used the widespread support of the people to recentralize the country.

Eh? The unravelling of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe didn't begin with East Germany. Czechoslovakia had already opened its borders to the West (through which quite a few East Germans emmigrated, and in many respects percipitated the crisis in E. Germany), and of course there was Solidarity in Poland.

The unraveling was more or less simultaneous. Berlin wall and Czechoslovak velvet revolution both happened in November, 1989. However Eastern Germany was basically Russian occupied part of the country that attacked and caused tremendous damage to Russia twice in the 20th century. It was the ultimate litmus test of Soviet resolve: if they weren't prepared to use force to keep Germany from unifying then the entire Eastern Europe was likely to be let loose.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't see how that picture proves anything

That is not static light, it shows not what shines brighter, but the dynamic of industrial lights. I.e. which lights became brighter and which went out. Dark blue is the color of dying lights, i.e. industrial collapse.

Would Soviet Union managed to lessen the drop? Or to begin growth before 1995 as the FSU did? Or manage the impact of the East Asian financial crisis of the 1998 better? Ultimately would it truly reform or continued limping until an even greater crisis somewhere in the future?

Considering a larger industrial base AND no losses of ties / sudden border rising and currency barriers between integrated industrial and agricultural complexes in various republics, I guess yes.

[TC Pilot]

But there is no evidence that the collapse itself would be lesser and the bigger question is whether USSR would truly reform or continue as before. Furthermore I think the Yeltsin's impact on Russia is greatly exaggerated. He certainly was a thief however ultimately leaders have to play with cards they are given. Gorbachev inherited a declining USSR economy which he tried to turn around, Yeltsin inherited the USSR that was already undergoing economic collapse. By the time he became the president of Russia in July 1991, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania already declared sovereignty and Ukraine declared sovereignty just 6 days after he became president. With a country undergoing economic and political collapse and a coup attempt just month after he came to office what could he do?

First off, Russia =/= Soviet Union. As for what Yeltsin could have done? Rolling over and dying probably would have helped. Shock therapy was an unmitigated disaster, and something Gorbachev would not have attempted.

The fact that he cleverly used the events around him to propel himself to power and steal doesn't mean that he ever had the chance to change the direction of the events that led to the political and economic collapse of the USSR as whole.

Well, first off, he's one of the primary architects of the Soviet Union's collapse. And secondly, shock therapy.

Yeltsin's own hand picked successor Putin inherited a country that was on the rebound after the low of East Asian financial crisis and was buoyed by rising natural resource prices. He used that fortunate turn of events to establish himself as a savior and used the widespread support of the people to recentralize the country.

What does this have anything to do with what I'm saying?

The unraveling was more or less simultaneous.

No, they weren't. Czechoslovakia's opening of the border caused a massive flight of East Germans, forcing the government in turn to revise its travel policies, which ultimately percipitated the events of Nov. 9th.

Berlin wall and Czechoslovak velvet revolution both happened in November, 1989. However Eastern Germany was basically Russian occupied part of the country that attacked and caused tremendous damage to Russia twice in the 20th century. It was the ultimate litmus test of Soviet resolve: if they weren't prepared to use force to keep Germany from unifying then the entire Eastern Europe was likely to be let loose.

And German unification didn't happen until 1990, and the four-power talks not until '91.

[Kane Starkiller]

First off, Russia =/= Soviet Union. As for what Yeltsin could have done? Rolling over and dying probably would have helped. Shock therapy was an unmitigated disaster, and something Gorbachev would not have attempted.

You still haven't shown anyone could've stopped the unraveling of the Soviet Union or stop the economic collapse. The economy started dropping long before the shock therapy and what you call shock therapy was nothing more than theft in which wide swaths of former leadership was involved. Changing one man would have made no difference.

Well, first off, he's one of the primary architects of the Soviet Union's collapse. And secondly, shock therapy.

Again USSR republics were declaring their sovereignty before he even became Russian president. He signed the Belavezha accords with leaders of Ukraine and Belarus yes but Belarus declared the state sovereignty on 27 July 1990 and Ukraine on 16 July 1990 (I misread that as 1991 in previous post) a year before he became the president of Russia on 10 July 1991. Again what evidence do you have he had any choice or ability to keep the USSR intact or that anyone else would've been successful?

What does this have anything to do with what I'm saying?

It demonstrates that economic upturns and downturns are not a result of actions of a single man and the idea that Yeltsin somehow brought about the collapse that was in the works since 70s is ridiculous.

No, they weren't. Czechoslovakia's opening of the border caused a massive flight of East Germans, forcing the government in turn to revise its travel policies, which ultimately percipitated the events of Nov. 9th.

Actually the Hungary was first, it opened it's borders in August 1989 and the Berlin wall fell in November. More or less simultaneously as I said.

And German unification didn't happen until 1990, and the four-power talks not until '91.

So what? Anyone could've predicted where things were going. If Eastern Germany became independent from USSR domination the most likely outcome is the German unification. It was a chain reaction, one concession caused more pressure for relaxation. The fact that USSR was letting East Germany without a fight was a signal to all other states. Relaxing border controls is not exactly the same as toppling communist governments and charting a policy independent of Soviet influence.

[TC Pilot]

You still haven't shown anyone could've stopped the unraveling of the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union didn't disintegrate until after the failed coup essentially surrendered what little leverage it still had vis-a-vis the republics. Without the coup, though the Union Treaty as it stood had practically no chance of functioning, it's often considered something of a stop-gap measure that would have bought time for a more viable solution to be hammered out.

Of course, the coup could have also succeeded and simply quashed the nascent nationalist movements in the core republics as well.

The economy started dropping long before the shock therapy and what you call shock therapy was nothing more than theft in which wide swaths of former leadership was involved. Changing one man would have made no difference.

Shock therapy was a sweeping reform that brought about the sudden economic liberalization of the economy. The plundering of Russian industry by the oligarchs was a product of the sudden de-nationalization of industries at the same time. All of these were policies carried out by Yeltsin's government, and they were an unmitigated disaster. Poland and China offer viable alternatives, ones Gorbachev is far more likely to have followed than swallowing neo-liberal free-market liberalism hook, line, and sinker.

Again USSR republics were declaring their sovereignty before he even became Russian president.

The Baltic republics were never integral to the existence of the Union. Russia, however, was.

He signed the Belavezha accords with leaders of Ukraine and Belarus yes but Belarus declared the state sovereignty on 27 July 1990 and Ukraine on 16 July 1990 (I misread that as 1991 in previous post) a year before he became the president of Russia on 10 July 1991. Again what evidence do you have he had any choice or ability to keep the USSR intact or that anyone else would've been successful?

"Sovereignty" and "independence" are two vastly different things. Technically, every republic had been sovereign since the very formation of the Union. Moveover, up until the coup, the core republics were negotiating with the center over the reformed Union Treaty, not for a dissolution of the Union, which most Soviets who bothered to vote in the March '91 referendum supported.

It demonstrates that economic upturns and downturns are not a result of actions of a single man and the idea that Yeltsin somehow brought about the collapse that was in the works since 70s is ridiculous.

Ah, so the Russian economy just imploded on its own, eh? The sudden de-nationalization and liberalization of the economy was just a coincidence?

Actually the Hungary was first, it opened it's borders in August 1989 and the Berlin wall fell in November. More or less simultaneously as I said.

Except one directly caused the other. Without the opening of the border in the other countries of the Eastern Bloc, the events of November 9-10 would not have happened.

The fact that USSR was letting East Germany without a fight was a signal to all other states. Relaxing border controls is not exactly the same as toppling communist governments and charting a policy independent of Soviet influence.

Ah yes, a signal to all those states that had... already broken away

[Kane Starkiller]

The Soviet Union didn't disintegrate until after the failed coup essentially surrendered what little leverage it still had vis-a-vis the republics. Without the coup, though the Union Treaty as it stood had practically no chance of functioning, it's often considered something of a stop-gap measure that would have bought time for a more viable solution to be hammered out.

Of course, the coup could have also succeeded and simply quashed the nascent nationalist movements in the core republics as well.

Or the coup could've really blow up nationalist sentiment and result in a bloody civil war and the USSR could've went down the same road Yugoslavia did. This time with nukes thrown in.

Shock therapy was a sweeping reform that brought about the sudden economic liberalization of the economy. The plundering of Russian industry by the oligarchs was a product of the sudden de-nationalization of industries at the same time. All of these were policies carried out by Yeltsin's government, and they were an unmitigated disaster. Poland and China offer viable alternatives, ones Gorbachev is far more likely to have followed than swallowing neo-liberal free-market liberalism hook, line, and sinker.

Except Poland did undergo shock therapy which worked much better than in Russia. Again the difference was that USSR had no rule of law but rule of central government and KGB which used their position of power to conduct theft on a large scale. But this theft came after the economic collapse and the following political collapse and the coup which made Gorbachev powerless. It was the icing on the very large cake that started baking in the 70s.

"Sovereignty" and "independence" are two vastly different things. Technically, every republic had been sovereign since the very formation of the Union. Moveover, up until the coup, the core republics were negotiating with the center over the reformed Union Treaty, not for a dissolution of the Union, which most Soviets who bothered to vote in the March '91 referendum supported.

From here the eclaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine:
"PROCLAIMS State Sovereignty of Ukraine as supremacy, independence, integrity, and indivisibility of the Republic's authority within the boundaries of its territory, and its independence and equality in foreign relations."
Read the entire declaration and the intent is very clear: Ukraine has supreme authority over economy, military affairs and has it's own external policy.
Again: what is your evidence that any one man could reverse this? Furthermore had USSR leadership decided to use force to suppress Ukrainian wish for independence how can you be sure that it would result in preservation of the USSR as opposed to Yugoslav style civil war+nukes?

The question in March '91 referendum was as follows:
"Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"
What does it mean if you answer NO? That you don't want to preserve the USSR at all or that you do want to preserve the USSR but without the reform. The question was unclear.

In the December '91 Ukrainian referendum the question was:
"Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?"
The answer was 90% YES.
Here is the declaration.

In conclusion, when presented with option of at least reforming the USSR people voted YES, when presented with an option of actually getting out they again voted YES.
To recap the timeline:
16 July 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine
10 July 1991 Yeltsin becomes president of Russia
19 August 1991 Coup attempt against Gorbachev
24 August 1991 Declaration of Independence of Ukraine
1 December 1991 Referendum on independence of Ukraine passes
8 December 1991 Yeltsin signs Belavezha Accords

Barely a a month since coming into office Yeltsin is faced with Ukrainian independence and less than 5 months since coming into office the independence passes on referendum.
Any violent attempts to keep USSR unified could've led to a devastating civil war far more likely than a preservation and economic salvation of the USSR. You think "Balkans" was bad? Try half of Europe and third of Asia engulfed in a war involving 290 million people and 10,000 nukes.
Did Yeltsin take advantage of the situation? Yes. Did he have any realistic chance of changing the situation he found himself in? No.

Ah, so the Russian economy just imploded on its own, eh? The sudden de-nationalization and liberalization of the economy was just a coincidence?

Russian economy started declining together with that of USSR and the rapid collapse started in 1990, before the "Shock Therapy". Yeltsin was a thief, certainly, just like most of people in power and like any thief he obviously inflicted damage on the economy but this is not nearly on the same scale as the decline and then rapid collapse of USSR economy which began long before Yeltsin came to power. And again stealing has nothing to do with "liberalization" but the political collapse that enabled people "in the know" to rob the country.

Except one directly caused the other. Without the opening of the border in the other countries of the Eastern Bloc, the events of November 9-10 would not have happened.

Says who? Eastern Germans were running across the border for decades. And opening the border is not the same as toppling the government as I already stated. Besides opening of the borders didn't cause the East Germans to flee it merely enabled it. Therefore the dissatisfaction was already there and was shown during the protests in September 1989.

Ah yes, a signal to all those states that had... already broken away

Who had broken away? Czechoslovakian Velvet revolution started in 19 November 1989 and lasted till 29 December. The protests in Eastern Germany started in September 1989, were not crushed by Soviet tanks like those in 1968 Czechoslovakia or 1956 Hungary, thus signaling to other countries that Soviet resolve is gone.

[TC Pilot]

Or the coup could've really blow up nationalist sentiment and result in a bloody civil war and the USSR could've went down the same road Yugoslavia did. This time with nukes thrown in.

Assuming they would even attempt to break away in the event of a succesful coup. Ukraine, which you deem so telling, didn't exactly jump at the chance to criticize the GKChP's move.

Except Poland did undergo shock therapy which worked much better than in Russia

Because the reforms in Poland were carried out in a different way than they were in Russia. The reintroduction of free-market capitalism was far more gradualistic than Yeltsin's "Hey, we're capitalist now. Good luck. Now excuse me while I get drunk again."

Again the difference was that USSR had no rule of law but rule of central government and KGB which used their position of power to conduct theft on a large scale. But this theft came after the economic collapse and the following political collapse and the coup which made Gorbachev powerless. It was the icing on the very large cake that started baking in the 70s.

So in other words, you're admitting your claim is essentially that it's a coincidence that Russia's economy imploded after the Soviet collapse and Yeltsin's government's reforms.

Read the entire declaration and the intent is very clear: Ukraine has supreme authority over economy, military affairs and has it's own external policy.
Again: what is your evidence that any one man could reverse this?

The fact that over a year later they were about to sign a reformed Union Treaty and were still part of the Soviet Union.

Furthermore had USSR leadership decided to use force to suppress Ukrainian wish for independence how can you be sure that it would result in preservation of the USSR as opposed to Yugoslav style civil war+nukes?

And what makes you think a succesful coup would have even needed to supress a Ukrainian move for independence?

What does it mean if you answer NO? That you don't want to preserve the USSR at all or that you do want to preserve the USSR but without the reform. The question was unclear.

Supplemental questions were also asked, the results of all of which supported "sovereign" states in the context of a renewed Union. Sure, you could try saying that everyone that voted yes had it in their mind that a "No" would be interpreted as wanting no reform at all, but that'd be just plain stupid.

In conclusion, when presented with option of at least reforming the USSR people voted YES, when presented with an option of actually getting out they again voted YES.

After the coup.

Barely a a month since coming into office Yeltsin is faced with Ukrainian independence and less than 5 months since coming into office the independence passes on referendum.

What do you mean he's "faced" with Ukrainian independence? Yeltsin was the President of the RSFSR, not the Union. He has no business deciding whether Ukraine stays in the Union or not.

Says who?

Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge on the subject? The borders opening produced a surge of emmigration from East Germany that it had to address immediately. No border opening = no emmigration crisis = no imperative to revise travel policy = Schabowski not screwing up = no fall of the Berlin Wall.

Eastern Germans were running across the border for decades. And opening the border is not the same as toppling the government as I already stated. Besides opening of the borders didn't cause the East Germans to flee it merely enabled it. Therefore the dissatisfaction was already there and was shown during the protests in September 1989.

Irrelevent semantic nitpicking.

Who had broken away?

Poland and Hungary.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Union Treaty was popularly supported by all the Central Asian republics and if someone other than Yeltsin had gained power they at least would have remained in concord with Russia. As would have most likely Armenia, which could have used the support in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. I do agree that the Ukraine would have most likely pulled away no matter what, but in such a circumstance as that, the risk for civil war would have still been high as the stronger position of the Union State would make the dispute over the legitimate sovereignty of the Crimean (which is a part of Russia, illegally occupied by the Ukraine, and was long recognized as a part of Russia during the first independence of the Ukraine, and only given to the Ukraine by Khrushchev). The Ukrainian state might have well ended up partitioned, though, as I don't see the Soviet leadership there who was essentially still in charge being willing to fight a war against the USSR, and the units in their territory would have contained Russian elements and been of dubious loyalty, a fact which is not being considered.

Belarus would have probably also left in such a scenario, but later voluntarily rejoined the Union.

Mind you I suspect in the future that we are still going to see a Union State of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Abkhazia and Ossetia. The centrifugal forces don't really exceed those tending toward reintegration, so to speak, in the case of Kazakhstan and Belarus, and the later two would be included for completeness and reintegration.

[Kane Starkiller]

Assuming they would even attempt to break away in the event of a succesful coup. Ukraine, which you deem so telling, didn't exactly jump at the chance to criticize the GKChP's move.

Didn't you read the Ukrainian declaration dependence I linked to which came five days after the coup:
"In view of the mortal danger surrounding Ukraine in connection with the state coup in the USSR on August 19, 1991,
Continuing the thousand-year tradition of state development in Ukraine,
Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, and
Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares
Independence of Ukraine and creation of the independent Ukrainian state - UKRAINE."
Mortal danger? I certainly looks like they jumped at the chance to criticize the move to me.

Because the reforms in Poland were carried out in a different way than they were in Russia. The reintroduction of free-market capitalism was far more gradualistic than Yeltsin's "Hey, we're capitalist now. Good luck. Now excuse me while I get drunk again."

Different way being the widespread theft. Stealing doesn't have anything to do with economic system.

So in other words, you're admitting your claim is essentially that it's a coincidence that Russia's economy imploded after the Soviet collapse and Yeltsin's government's reforms.

As I already pointed out economy started collapsing before Yeltsin even became president and certainly before the reforms. Obviously it's no coincidence that economic collapse was followed by political collapse which enabled theft which further damaged the economy.

The fact that over a year later they were about to sign a reformed Union Treaty and were still part of the Soviet Union.

That is not a fact. It is your assumption based on a positive response to a referendum which asked the question in an unclear manner.

And what makes you think a succesful coup would have even needed to supress a Ukrainian move for independence?

The fact that 90% of the people voted for the independence?

Supplemental questions were also asked, the results of all of which supported "sovereign" states in the context of a renewed Union. Sure, you could try saying that everyone that voted yes had it in their mind that a "No" would be interpreted as wanting no reform at all, but that'd be just plain stupid.

Again there was no clear option for independence. This is similar to Hawaii statehood referendum in which the only options were to become a state or remain a territory so obviously most of the people voted for statehood. Had the independence option been offered the result might have been different. In any case the December referendum of the same year which clearly asked whether Ukraine wishes to be independent clears any uncertainties.

After the coup.

The same you claim wasn't condemned by Ukraine? And this doesn't change the fact that independence was overwhelmingly accepted.

What do you mean he's "faced" with Ukrainian independence? Yeltsin was the President of the RSFSR, not the Union. He has no business deciding whether Ukraine stays in the Union or not.

You called him the architect of USSR dissolution not I. By the time he signed accords with Belarus and Ukraine Baltic republics, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan already declared independence in August through October.
When he signed the accords with the leaders of Belarus and Ukraine it was a pretty much done deal. It's all well and good to sit today and say "if only he fought harder". As I said it could've also lead to a civil war.

Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge on the subject? The borders opening produced a surge of emmigration from East Germany that it had to address immediately. No border opening = no emmigration crisis = no imperative to revise travel policy = Schabowski not screwing up = no fall of the Berlin Wall.

Really so the unraveling of USSR control of Eastern Germany was caused by a lapsus linguae on the part of Schabowski? At that point USSR still had the option to do what it did in Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1956. It didn't do it and the events further escalated from there.

Irrelevent semantic nitpicking.

It isn't semantics. The act of opening up the border is not the same as defying USSR dominance and the USSR could still try and use the force. It didn't and the dominoes followed.

Who had broken away?

Poland and Hungary.

Jeruzelski didn't resign until late 1990 and the free elections were first held in March 1990 in Hungary. As I said 1989 and especially late 1989 is when things started to unravel in most of Eastern Europe. Eastern Germany was simply a most important test of USSR resolve since the collapse of communism in, say, Hungary wouldn't have the same implication as fall of communism in Eastern Germany and it's subsequent unification with rest of Germany.

The Ukrainian state might have well ended up partitioned, though, as I don't see the Soviet leadership there who was essentially still in charge being willing to fight a war against the USSR, and the units in their territory would have contained Russian elements and been of dubious loyalty, a fact which is not being considered.

The problem is partition attempts tend to turn into wars and with both Ukraine and Russia armed to the teeth and with nukes that wouldn't turn out well. Similar situation was in Yugoslavia where Croatia and Bosnia had a sizable minority of Serbs who wanted to secede from the countries after they seceded from Yugoslavia and which caused civil war since ethnic groups didn't really have neat lines dividing them.
I can only regret that Yugoslavia didn't have it's own "Belavezha Accords".

Mind you I suspect in the future that we are still going to see a Union State of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Abkhazia and Ossetia. The centrifugal forces don't really exceed those tending toward reintegration, so to speak, in the case of Kazakhstan and Belarus, and the later two would be included for completeness and reintegration.

I doubt it. In such a Union State Russia would have 85% of the population and I doubt smaller countries are eager to be simply engulfed. Even Belarus and Lukashenko which are very dependent on favorable economic ties with Russia didn't really make any progress on the further integration. Also while Kazakhstan was 53% Kazakh in 1999 it's 67% Kazakh according to the 2009 census. I doubt the support for USSR was anywhere near as great as it was during dissolution.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Union State budget for 2009 has been increased from 2 billion rubles to up to 7 billion rubles and Lukachenko has been cooperating with Putin insomuch as Putin is now the chairman of the organization. Both Abkhazia and Ossetia have requested membership with Abkhazia having observer status; Kazakhstan is currently negotiating a customs union with Russia to be implemented in 2010, with the goal of joining the Union sometime after that, and the opposition party in Kyrgyzstan has made a Union membership referendum a central part of its political stance. These are all recent developments, and let's not forget that the Kazakh people have been part of Russia for quite some time, and that even if one's nominal ethnic identity is Kazakh that the degree of Russian cultural penetration is considerable. And the economic forces favouring integration are simply overwhelming.

The interesting question in the modern era of course is what happens with the Crimean. Will the Ukrainians ever reconcile the majority-Russian populace? And Russia has considerable incentive for them not to, as Sebastopol remains a crucial naval facility. Secessionist activity in the Donetsk seems unlikely but the Crimean is another story entirely.

[Kane Starkiller]

Seeing as how the population of Ukrainians and Russians in Crimea are dropping and the population of Crimean Tatars is rising and seeing as how Russian population is projected to drop from 142 million to 109 million in 2050 while Turkish population is expected to grow from 75 million to 100 million I suspect that the question "what happens to Crimea" is going to be even more interesting than you think.

[TC Pilot]

Didn't you read the Ukrainian declaration dependence I linked to which came five days after the coup

Yeah, after the coup.

Mortal danger? I certainly looks like they jumped at the chance to criticize the move to me.

The coup had already been completely defeated by that point. I'm talking about during the coup.

Different way being the widespread theft. Stealing doesn't have anything to do with economic system.

As I already pointed out economy started collapsing before Yeltsin even became president and certainly before the reforms. Obviously it's no coincidence that economic collapse was followed by political collapse which enabled theft which further damaged the economy.

Ah, so you're just a complete idiot. That explains a fair bit.

The fact that 90% of the people voted for the independence?

After the coup. For fuck's sake, are you really so utterly devoid of any intelligence that you have absolutely no conception of time?

Really so the unraveling of USSR control of Eastern Germany was caused by a lapsus linguae on the part of Schabowski?

Was your head bashed in repeatedly when you were a child, or is this apparent void space between your ears a recent development?

It isn't semantics.

Yeah, it is, and it's about the only part of your posts that isn't a pathetic joke.

Jeruzelski didn't resign until late 1990

Oh right, and here I was thinking that the total electoral victory of Solidarity in '89 is what mattered. Oh look, no Soviet crackdown. But East Germany's the only thing that really matters, so we can just throw that aside.

and the free elections were first held in March 1990 in Hungary.

Ah, so just forget all about the establishment of multi-party parliamentarianism and the official change to the Republic of Hungary. Since it doesn't fit into Starkiller Kane's little world where everything revolves around Berlin, it doesn't matter.

Yeah, we're done here. I'm not going to waste my time with your continued idiocy.

[K. A. Pital]

And again stealing has nothing to do with "liberalization" but the political collapse that enabled people "in the know" to rob the country.

Really? Why did Belarus, which clamped down on liberalization, save quite a bit of industries, maintain a decent life standard and overall experience a lesser crisis, being the first Republiс to come out of it?

Are you saying capital flight is not connected to liberalization? I mean, it's hard to sell factory for a yacht when the law forbids that and you'll go to fucking jail if you do, allright?

Except Poland did undergo shock therapy which worked much better than in Russia. Again the difference was that USSR had no rule of law but rule of central government and KGB which used their position of power to conduct theft on a large scale.

USSR had as much rule of law as Poland. The legal systems of Soviet nations (which included the Warsaw Pact) were remarkably similar. Especially in what concerns economy. TC Pilot is right that Poland introduced reform in a much more gradual fashion.

Incidentally, the oligarchs had nothing on the KGB. They were all just ordinary government goons. Often quickly propelled to ministerial positions by Yeltsin, in fact, who often removed those without criminal inclinations and replaced them for the thieves (e.g. Chubais, Koch, et cetera). So your picture is not just plain wrong, it's deliberately wrong. Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're just lying. Pick one.

Different way being the widespread theft. Stealing doesn't have anything to do with economic system.

With the volume of capital flight from Poland being..? No, I want to see hard numbers. Just how much did the Polish oligarchs steal? What is the annual capital flight from Poland? How steep was the industrial decline? I want to stop this empty talk. Hard facts. How much did they steal?

Or the coup could've really blow up nationalist sentiment and result in a bloody civil war and the USSR could've went down the same road Yugoslavia did. This time with nukes thrown in.

Or - and you should really understand how the RVSN functioned - the nukes would remain fully under government control. Because that's how it works. Nuclear stockpiles, unless they'd be captured by rogue nations seeking to break off from the USSR, would remain firmly under central control. Besides, who would risk nuking his own land? That's just insane.

He signed the Belavezha accords with leaders of Ukraine and Belarus yes but Belarus declared the state sovereignty on 27 July 1990 and Ukraine on 16 July 1990 (I misread that as 1991 in previous post) a year before he became the president of Russia on 10 July 1991. Again what evidence do you have he had any choice or ability to keep the USSR intact or that anyone else would've been successful?

One-sided declarations had no value. Besides, had Yeltsin not forced Gorbachov down - and he played a fucking major part in his downfall! - a lot of this crap would just not exist.

Yeltsin was a thief, certainly, just like most of people in power and like any thief he obviously inflicted damage on the economy but this is not nearly on the same scale as the decline and then rapid collapse of USSR economy which began long before Yeltsin came to power.

It is. The Yeltsin rule saw the largest amount of industrial robbery, I would even say systemic robbery and systemic destruction of industrial power. Regardless of the Soviet collapse, Kane, those factories didn't fucking VANISH OVERNIGHT when Russia was trasnferred from Gorbie to Yeltsin. They were meticulously destroyed over a period of over 8 years, during which annual capital flight was enormous. Yeltsin conducted a policy which was a death blow to the Russian industry, not just a death blow but a fucking massacre.

[Big Orange]

Russia (and perhaps its detached regions like Ukraine by extension) has a bad trend with low birth rates, with Putin and other doom-mongers claiming the population for Russia proper could go from 143 Million Today to 111 Million within just four decades. I doubt that helps the economy. Russia had a bad population deficit of up to 48 million by the mid to late 1940s (which is not surprising, giving the severe ravages of the Axis invasion) with the 10 million out of the 40-8 million due to a decline in the birth rate, although it seemed to get a lot worse in the 1960s when the birth rate declined from 23.2 per 1,000 population at the beginning of the decade to only 14.1 as soon as 1968. By 1982 it only crawled back up to 17.3 per 1,000 (which then dropped off again in the mid 80s to mid 90s). A low birth rate is not necessarily a bad thing (it's something the UK really needs) but I doubt a cratering birth rate in a huge industrialized superpower seemed desirable.